Hi to all:
I will not be able to participate in the NC teleconference today.
I give my proxy to YJ and in her absence then to Milton, provided the
following
instructions to vote and, if possible, during discussion to express some
personal ideas.
1. I think that the best approach for .ORG is the model Sponsored
Restricted where restriction means to
that finally the non-commercial community (wider than stablished
non-profit organizations) has clear
advantage and priorities over the commercial community when
non-commercials registers domain names in .ORG for
legimit purposes. I think that .ORG should not follow being the place
of commercial entities to protect
intellectual property preventing non-commercial community to use their
own names, labels, IDs, etc, because
coincides with commercial domain names. Also it has to has its own DRP
(a CEDRP, for example).
2. In the event that the following paragraph is proposed to be added to
the Statement Policy of .ORGG
"The Task Force would, in the interest of increasing
competition, not wish to see the incumbent dominant
provider of gTLD registry services, Verisign, take an
interest in or contract to deliver critical services
to the new management organization."
I don't support to add such paragraph as it is because the actual
Registry Agreement of .ORG has such a provision already stablished
for Verisign and, as such, I don't think it is necesary to make
emphasize in this point again.
Alternatively, if there is insistence in such a paragraph, I propose
that instead of make emphasize in such particular point, that
be more general: "The Task Force expects full accomplishment of the
actual Registry .ORG Agreement between Verisign and ICANN, specially
those provisions provided in the Subsection 5.1 Expiration of this
Agreement, which can be found in:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-org-25may01.htm
"
2. In other circumstances I wouldn't support the actual Policy
Statement of .ORG because I think there issues to cover (as model
to be adopted, for example, and if anyone is interesting in read my
comments please review the NCDNHC discuss public list
at http://www.icann-ncc.org), however, and in order to move forward this
issue in order that .ORG be Divested as scheduled and for the sake of
the vote that took place in the NCDNHC f2f meeting in MdR (although the
validation of such vote didn't take place yet), I support the actual
Policy Statement of .ORG.
Hope the NC today have a productive meeting
Best Regards
Vany
Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I plan to fully participate in the NC telecon
> tomorrow, but I am on the road (at the Pacific
> Telecommunications Council in Honolulu).
>
> In case anything goes wrong with my access
> arrangements, or if I show up late for some
> reason, please delegate my proxy to YJ Park
> until I appear on the call.
>
> --MM
--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org